Skip to content

· Private foundation

Alan D and Marsha W Bramowitz Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$20k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$27kHealth$24kPhilanthropy$22kArts & Culture$17kReligion$15kYouth Development$3kCivil Rights$2kHousing & Shelter$250Other$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $7k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
$500
Median grant
2
States reached
$385k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SIDNEY KIMMEL MEDICAL COLLEGE$13,152
CENTRAL SYNAGOGUE NY$4,400
PITTSBURGH SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA$1,400
FCGC SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION$500
CHABAD AT PITT$200
FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE- PITTSBURGH$180
THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACADEMY$100
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–25, $690) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE - PITTSBURGH: $500 → 11%FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE- PITTSBURGH: $180 → 11%WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $10 → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
MA
PA
CA
MO
MD
DC
TX
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$140k · 17 repeat orgs$49k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +28% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
21

Total granted

$140k
$43k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+11%

Still filing today

41%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthHuman ServicesCivil RightsEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • AL
    ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
    2× · 2022–2023 · $2k · revenue +28%
  • TF
    THE FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE OF PITTSBURGH INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $680 · revenue +8%
  • University of Chicago
    2× · 2021–2022 · $517 · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • P
    PSO
    one grant, 2020 · $20k
  • TO
    TREE OF LIFE CAMPAIGN
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +11%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
2
Point Park University

Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…

—
3
Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

The trustees of the university of pennsylvania (the "university") sees itself as having a public service mission. in such regard, the university aims to provide a rich and diverse educational environment for its students; to pioneer…

Education
4
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
5
Institute for Advanced Study - Louis Bamberger & Mrs Felix Fuld Foundation

The institute for advanced study (the institute) is one of the world's leading centers for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry. see schedule o.

Science & Tech
6
Drexel University

Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…

Education
7
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
8
Manhattanville University

To educate students to be ethical and socially responsible leaders in a global community.

Education
9
Delaware Valley University

See schedule o.we are inspired by the ideals of our founder who, in 1896, emphasized respect for all people and ideas, who honored knowledge with practice, progress and the common good. our historical commitment to experiential learning…

—
10
Albright College

As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.

Education
11
DePauw University

Depauw university develops leaders the world needs through an uncommon commitment to the liberal arts. depauw's diverse and inclusive learning and living experience, distinctive in its rigorous intellectual engagement and its global and…

Education
12
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Pittsburgh; the most unlike its peers is Thomas Jefferson University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 42 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
16/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $59,629 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSIDNEY KIMMEL MEDICAL COLLEGE: $23,152 · OtherSIDNEY KIMMEL MEDICAL COLLEGEJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PGH: $20,800 · OtherJEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER PGHPSO: $20,000 · OtherPSOCENTRAL SYNOGOUE NY: $13,890 · OtherCENTRAL SYNOGOUE NYTREE OF LIFE CAMPAIGN: $10,000 · OtherTREE OF LIFE CAMPAIGNPARK EAST DAY SCHOOL GRANPARENTS FD: $8,500 · Other+21 more: $19,751 · Other+21 moreUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $5,000 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $2,000 · EducationTRUSTEES OF PHILLIPS ACADEMY: $1,000 · EducationTHOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: $1,000 · EducationUniversity of Chicago: $517 · Education+2 more: $375 · EducationANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $2,250 · Civil RightsPITTSBURGH SYMPHONY INC: $1,400 · Arts & CultureTHE FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE OF PITTSBURGH INC: $680 · Human Services+1 more: $10 · Human ServicesPROJECT RENEWAL INC: $250 · HealthTEAMSMILE INC: $200 · HealthNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $150 · Environment
Other$175,722Education$9,892Civil Rights$2,250Arts & Culture$1,400Human Services$690Health$450Environment$150

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $2,250 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF PHILLIPS ACADEMY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE OF PITTSBURGH INC: $680 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $517 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT RENEWAL INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTEAMSMILE INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NEIGHBORHOOD ACADEMY: $200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCR JRS CHIP: $175 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $150 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSquirrel Hill Urban Coalition: $100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAnimal Friends Inc: $50 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTMORELAND COUNTY FOOD BANK INC: $22 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC: $10 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds PITTSBURGH SYMPHONY INC ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF PHILLIPS ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds THE FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE OF PITTSBURGH INC ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT RENEWAL INC ↗
  • Who funds TEAMSMILE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds CR JRS CHIP ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Squirrel Hill Urban Coalition ↗
  • Who funds Animal Friends Inc ↗
  • Who funds WESTMORELAND COUNTY FOOD BANK INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Jewish Federation of Greater PittsburghPA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh · The Pittsburgh Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Alan D and Marsha W Bramowitz Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Alan D and Marsha W Bramowitz Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Wounded Warrior Project Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 42 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Alan D and Marsha W Bramowitz’s filings →

More from the funding graph